Re: DRAFT minutes for the 3 September teleconference

Thanks for this - I'm in accordance that the draft accurately represents my
recollections of the discussion in the meeting

kind regards,

   Geoff

At 01:35 PM 9/6/2002 -0400, Amy van der Hiel wrote:

>Hello all --
>
>Below please find a draft of the minutes of the teleconference on 3 September.
>
>The final minutes can be made more concise, I just wanted to make sure 
>that in this draft, I clearly described the issues.  Please forward any 
>suggestions or corrections.  Thank you very much.
>
>Best regards,
>Amy
>
>-----------------
>ICANN Protocol Standards Organization (PSO)
>3 September, 2002 Teleconference
>
>Reported by: Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary as of September 2002
>
>
>Participants:
>Martin Dürst, W3C Representative
>Azucena Hernandez, ETSI Representative
>Geoff Huston, IETF Representative
>Tapio Kaijanen, ETSI Representative
>Brian Moore, ITU-T Representative
>Amy van der Hiel, PSO-PC Secretary, W3C
>
>Regrets:
>Richard Hill, ITU-T Representative
>Michael St.Johns, IETF Representative
>Daniel Weitzner, W3C Representative
>
>1. Martin Dürst summarized the transfer of PSO mailing lists and web sites 
>from the ITU to W3C:
>
>Martin stated that as of 3 September, the transfer was complete and the 
>settings done. He noted that the transfer should not have been too 
>difficult (just two mailing lists and a small web site), but that each 
>organization’s set ups are a little different and there were some serious 
>problems (lost mailing headers, copying mail archives, missing files, etc) 
>in transferring from one site to another. He suggested that if the PSO 
>lasts another year and there must be another transfer, the easiest and 
>most stable solution would be to transfer the site and lists permanently 
>to ICANN.
>
>Azucena noted that the transfer seemed quick and clean and congratulated 
>the ITU and W3C.  Geoff and Brian agreed.  Brian noted that the PSO could 
>come back to Martin’s idea for the transfer in the future.
>
>2.  Brian Moore reviewed the ITU comments on ICANN reform
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pso-pc/2000-2002/msg00664.html
>
>Brian noted that the ITU put into record their concerns and interest in 
>keeping good relationships going and that the ITU had seen the latest 
>proposals on the TAC.
>http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm#2D2
>
>Brian noted that the latest proposal states that the TAC will consist of 
>initially ten members with two nominations each from ETSI, ITU-T, W3C, 
>IETF, and IAB and later three other persons with a strong technical 
>background.  He said the TAC may not be very representative of the 
>standards world if both the IETF and IAB have the opportunity to nominate 
>people and if the three people with strong technical background also come 
>from the IETF community.
>
>Geoff noted that according to it’s charter, the IAB has responsibility for 
>external liaison for the IETF.  He stressed that any answer was informal 
>at this stage, but that if the IETF were to liaise with the TAC, the IAB 
>would take that role and that the delineation, with regard to external 
>relations,  should be more clear in the report.
>
>Azucena noted that ETSI has only had a couple of days to discuss the 
>issue.  She said that they were asked to prepare a draft, and that their 
>concerns were similar to Brian’s. She said that she saw no reason why the 
>IETF and IAB should appear as separate organizations if the IAB represents 
>external relations of the IETF.  She noted that ETSI was going to suggest 
>keeping  the previous proposal of two representatives from the existing 
>bodies in the PSO, especially if the IETF representative considers that 
>having a fifth body is too much.
>
>Geoff noted he did not say it was too much, he just noted that it is the 
>IAB’s role in the IETF is to form external liaisons and therefore it would 
>be the IAB's role to nominate individuals.  He said that he understands 
>what the ITU-T and ETSI are saying but cannot convey a position from IETF 
>at this time.
>
>Brian thanked Geoff and noted that the ITU-T would also work on comments 
>to the review committee and that the understanding Geoff described will 
>help them with a modification of the proposal.
>
>Martin noted that the W3C doesn't have position yet, as they just received 
>the document. He said he was a little surprised that Brian suggested that 
>the three additional members with a strong technical background would come 
>from an IETF related constituency.  He noted that it could be possible 
>that people with strong technical experience would come from the IETF 
>community but pointed out that it's good to have expert people, wherever 
>they come from.  Brian noted he was merely making an observation, not 
>suggesting that this would be the outcome, just that it could turn out 
>that way if the composition of the nominating board considers votes from 
>both the IETF and IAB.
>
>Geoff read out loud a section of the IAB submission to ICANN on the topic 
>of the Technical Advisory Committee and its composition.  "The IAB would 
>like to note that technical issues often require specific expertise to 
>properly address and a standing committee would, by necessity, not be able 
>to bring appropriate levels of expertise to every issue that may be 
>referred to the committee. There is also the weakness of having a 
>technical committee operate under an assumption that differences of 
>perspective should be resolved within the committee, and that a committee 
>would be driven by a need to arrive at a single answer, whereas the issue 
>of evaluating alternate technically feasible solutions often has a 
>significant policy component. The concept of a standing committee exposes 
>these weaknesses, whereas the alternative of using a number of technically 
>focused organizations and individuals on an ad hoc basis to provide 
>comment upon request should be considered by ICANN."
>
>Brian said that the ITU-T position was very much along the same line and 
>that they don't anticipate that individuals would sit in a room and 
>pontificate on technical issues but rather act as a window into larger 
>areas of expertise and consult with their people and come back with 
>ideas.  Azucena agreed that individuals that represent an organization in 
>the TAC don't need to be the ones who give technical advice and that the 
>important role is to be the gate to take the problem into the community 
>and then bring ideas back to ICANN.  She noted that ETSI would prefer 
>representatives who would give good advice supported by their community 
>rather than one single technical expert or Einstein. They want to make 
>sure that representation is fair and that the same chance is given to 
>different communities. ETSI did not agree with the idea that technical 
>people would be chosen on a case by case basis but rather that they should 
>be identifiable representatives to channel advice into community. She 
>noted that ETSI were a little unhappy with the idea that the three 
>technical people would be chosen by the nominating committee for the TAC, 
>but that it would be good if geographic diversity were encouraged in the 
>choices, especially areas other than just North America and Europe.
>
>Geoff proposed that ETSI, ITU-T, W3C and IETF send drafts of their 
>comments to ICANN to PSO to try to find a common ground about making sure 
>the right people are able, through their organizations, to respond to 
>ICANN issues.
>
>Brian agreed and said he would work with Richard to send to a draft to the 
>PSO.  Azucena agreed and said that ETSI would prepare comments, and then 
>after seeing the papers, everyone could look for common ground.  Geoff 
>suggested that a deadline of 25 September.  Brian suggested that the group 
>try forward their statements within the week.  Amy agreed to look at the 
>statements and to work on a draft synthesizing the common ideas, to send 
>to the PSO, in the week after that.
>
>3. The PSO reviewed two nominees to the ICANN board - Francisco da Silva 
>and Paul Hoffman.
>
>Brian noted that the PSO had agreed to try to reach a decision by 16 
>September and suggested that the attendees try to reach an agreement 
>during the teleconference or put something into action.  He noted that in 
>the past, proxies had been allowed and that candidates had been reviewed 
>by way of submitted information but could be asked to complete an 
>additional questionnaire, if further information was needed.
>
>Azucena agreed and said her preference was to deal with the nominations 
>during the teleconference so that the name of whomever was chosen could go 
>forward to ICANN.  Brian said that he was able to discuss the candidates, 
>that he had discussed the issue with Richard, and he could if necessary, 
>vote that day.  Geoff said that the IAB has requested that both he and 
>Michael St.Johns abstain from voting but that the group should proceed 
>onward with the process.  He stated that this abstention was without 
>prejudice or comment on the suitability of the candidates, but rather 
>related to perception of the PSO as winding-up.
>
>Martin said that he had understood from an earlier teleconference and the 
>deadline of 16 September that there would be some serious discussion of 
>the candidates’ qualifications and that a questionnaire would be sent out 
>if needed so he did not think that there would be a vote at the current 
>teleconference. He suggested that the group set up a future date to vote 
>in order to allow time to be able to evaluate candidates.
>
>Azucena said she understood Martin’s point but would prefer not to have to 
>postpone the election. She requested that if the PSO need to postpone the 
>vote, that it take place that week and suggested that the PSO cast votes 
>then and if necessary, wait for the W3C votes.  Brian noted he would not 
>be available anymore that week or the next week.  He suggested that if the 
>group knew the ways that the ITU-T and ETSI cast votes, a conclusion might 
>be able to be made. Azucena proposed that votes be disclosed.  Brian 
>stated that the ITU-T looked at the candidates and that for a number of 
>reasons,  including experience and geographic situation, the ITU-T voted 
>for Francisco da Silva. Azucena noted that ETSI looked at the merits of 
>both candidates and due to his expertise and knowledge also cast their 
>vote for Francisco da Silva.  Geoff noted that the IETF abstained from voting.
>
>Martin stated that given the disclosed votes, it wouldn't make sense to 
>take everyone's time by extending the deadline for voting.  He said he 
>knows Paul Hoffman and that he’s been active in different areas but that 
>he does not know Francisco da Silva.  He stated that he thought that Paul 
>would have been a valuable candidate, but given the other votes, he felt 
>that the PSO shouldn't spend further time on the issue and therefore, 
>abstained.
>
>The vote was carried with 4 votes for Francisco da Silva (Azucena 
>Hernandez and Tapio Kaijanen of ETSI and Brian Moore and Richard Hill (in 
>absentia) of ITU-T ) and three abstentions (Geoff Huston and Michael St. 
>Johns of IETF and Martin Dürst of W3C).
>
>Amy agreed to forward Francisco da Silva’s name to ICANN  as the PSO 
>nomination for the Board of Trustees and to let Paul Hoffman and Francisco 
>da Silva know the decision of the PSO.
>
>4.   Azucena asked that in the event that the PSO doesn't hold another 
>teleconference before the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, it be decided who 
>would give the PSO report. She noted that while none of the ETSI 
>representatives will go to Shanghai, they did give the report in 
>Budapest.  Brian said he will not be going to Shanghai but that Richard 
>hasn't said whether or not he's going.  Geoff said he did not intend to go 
>to Shanghai.  Azucena proposed that if no one from the PSO goes, that the 
>group should prepare a written report to be sent to ICANN.  She noted that 
>her report presented in Budapest covered 1 1/2 years, so this new report 
>would only have to cover the last three months but that this should be 
>done as a courtesy to ICANN board. Brain said he would ask Richard his 
>plans for Shanghai.
>
>Amy agreed to go through minutes from the last three months to pick out 
>issues that the PSO had discussed to prepare a draft for a report.  Brian 
>suggested that Vladimir might be able to help in preparing the report. The 
>deadline for this report is 28 October, 2002.
>
>The next teleconference was scheduled for Wednesday 16 October at 12:00 UTC

Received on Saturday, 7 September 2002 07:11:51 UTC